The Abilene reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1883-1888, 1887-11-03
alton is a venial error. at any rate

Judge IOr giving CIllZen the dement,
Of the doubt in corporation cases. State
VS.. H. Guettler, 81 KS. $50. This was
a prosecution under the prohibitory
liquor law. There were five counts in
the information, and it was reversed
as to one count and affirmed as to the
remaining four counts; the reversal
| was because the court did not compel
the county attorney to elect as to
which particular sale of liquor he re-
lied upon for conviction. This did not
affect the case. except as to the one
count. and its only effect was to reduce
the fine Sl00. II is pretty poor case
to site as d reversal, and simply shows
the desperate straits of would be Judge
Mead and his political bakers.
Kether vs.. RiZer ct al. 81 KS, 603;
affirmed.
State VS.. Lewis Wahl, So KS, COS;
reversed.
Prosecution under Pl. 319 of the
Crimes Act.
The Supreme Court in this case, in
order to reverse the trial court, were
compelled to change the punctuation,
and thus the language Of the act in
question.
Davey vs.. Mccartney, IS KS; af-
filmed.
Reed VS.. New, So KS, 727; affirmed.
City of Abilene VS.. Hendricks, Is
Pac. Rep. 12l; affirmed.
Stllman VS.. Mcconnell, 13 Pac. Rep.
57l; affirmed.
State VS.. Decker, IA Pac. Rep. 2s3;
affirmed.
Hazelton vs.. Reed Exr., not yet re-
ported; reversed.
Lowe VS.. Higinbotham, not yet re-
ported; affirmed.
Eisenhower VS.. Slime, not yet report
ed; affirmed.
Fisher VS.. Carpenter, not yet report
ed; reversed.
Perhaps Mr.. Mead, in making up his
wonderful table, did not intend to be
unfair, but it seems to an unprecedented
man as if he should have completed
the judges record to date, instead of
stopping with the record of the first
year and half of the term. Unprej-
udiced people, who comprise the mass
of citizens who are to decide the ques-
ton of who shall preside over the dis
trict courts of the Eighth district dur
ing the next four years, may believe
that Mr.. Mead purposely omitted the
last cases decided by the Supreme
Court, because five out of seven of
them were affirmed. But we all at
least assume that gentleman who
sets himself up as suitable candidate
for Judicial honOrs, could not be guilty
Of such petty meanness. The system
used in the article in question, to
measure the ability and usefulness of
a magistrate by per centage of the
number of times his decisions have
been affirmed compared with the total
number appealed from, is something
entirely new, and, of course, Mr.. Mead
is safe in making such comparison,
since he has no record to be tested in
that way. Still for all that he has a
certain kind OF record in the reports
ihat has some bearing on the question
# his ability 10 discharge the duties
i the office successfully. A careful
examination of the reported cases
nercirbefOre mentioned SHOWS that
Judge" Mead appeared in but one of
chem aS counsel, and that was the Case
of Welch vs. Henry ct al, in which he
aas attorney for the plaintiff in error,
and it would seem that the case was
so clear that the mereSt tyro in law
shonld have known that the Judgment
# the lower court must be gffirmed by
Tie supreme Court. If this, his only
reported case appealed from Judge
Nicholson S decision, is a far exhibit
NS m, i I'm Id hull txr
tlo politicians of Abilene Aho aIe at
tempting 20 foist him OF ON the people
of this judicial district Will have much
20 answer for should they unfortunate
/. succeed In afGc Ug their purpose.
II is, however. we'll known to every
lawyer that The number of reversaiS by
az appellate court is never a fair test
OF trio.i judges ability or legal learn
ing. fOr large prOpoi ton # them are
caused by the ignurance and culpable
cal e!eSSness OF practitioners at the Lar
in preparing cases for trial. 1t is Ut
terry Impossible i,r any judge, no :mat-
ter how extensive his learning, to be
able u remember and apply correctly
all of that vast StorehOuse of learning
Known as common and statute law In
every point that comes UP in the trial
Of causes, which must, however, be
promptly decided, and very often, I'M
the attorneys engaged in
The trial OF the case arc unable, through |
ignorance OF carelcssness. or both, to |
tsSiSt the court by the presentation of |
precedents in point. 1t seems to me |
hat fairer and better test of the |
and ability of magistrate |
IS, how many of his orders, DEGREES |
and judgments that are appealabie,
nave been successfully assailed in an |
appellate court? / find that Judge |
Nicholson, in the course of his term of |
office, mas rendered nearly or quite, in
round numbers, four thousand orders,
iecrees and judgments that might |
lave been taken TO The Supreme Court
IN appeal CT petition in error and that
his decisions have been reversed in that
;nurt in ten cases The people of the
district have a just right to be proud
If this record. Another thing. the rec
)rd shows that Judge Nicholson has
never been reversed for error in in
tructing d jury, but always upon some
echnical quibble that did not affect
he justice or equity of his decision.
The only question that should enter
nto this contest is, which candidate is
Dest fitted by nature, training, expe
fence and integrity for this important
nj responsible position. The political
ffiiiation of both or either of the CALI
dates should have nothing to do with
he election of judge, for it is univer-
ally conceded that the ermine of our
Judges shOuld not be dragged throu0h |